United States v. Raul Martinez-Rodriguez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8595
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Martinez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and faced sentencing where a prior 2008 Texas conviction for "causing injury to a child" (Tex. Penal Code § 22.04(a)(3)) was treated as an aggravated felony.
- The PSR and district court characterized the Texas conviction as a crime of violence and applied an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and the § 1326(b)(2) sentencing framework.
- The state-court indictment alleged Martinez-Rodriguez grabbed and threw a child, causing bodily injury; plea-related documents were in the record.
- Martinez-Rodriguez argued § 22.04(a) is not categorically a crime of violence and is not divisible, so the modified categorical approach should not have been used.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether § 22.04(a)’s "act or omission" alternatives are elements (making the statute divisible) or means (making it indivisible) in light of Mathis and state precedent.
- The court concluded the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has treated the act/omission language as means (not elements), so § 22.04(a) is indivisible; the district court erred to apply the modified categorical approach and must resentence Martinez-Rodriguez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tex. Penal Code § 22.04(a) is divisible (permitting the modified categorical approach) or indivisible | Martinez-Rodriguez: § 22.04(a) is not divisible because it can be violated by act or omission, so the statute is broader than the generic crime-of-violence | Government: § 22.04(a) is divisible; prior Fifth Circuit decisions applied the modified categorical approach to § 22.04(a) | Held: § 22.04(a) is indivisible because Texas precedent treats "act or omission" as means, not elements; modified categorical approach not available |
| Whether the prior Texas conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony (crime of violence) for enhancement | Martinez-Rodriguez: Because § 22.04(a) is indivisible and broader than § 16, the conviction is not categorically a crime of violence | Government: District court treated the conviction as a crime of violence under the modified categorical approach | Held: The conviction cannot be treated as an aggravated felony based on means-focused inquiry; district court erred and sentence is vacated |
| Whether district court properly relied on plea/indictment facts to determine the nature of the prior offense | Martinez-Rodriguez: Court should not have consulted underlying plea/charging documents if statute is indivisible | Government: Under prior Fifth Circuit precedent, such records could be used | Held: After Mathis, underlying facts cannot be used for indivisible statutes; reliance on them was error |
| Remedy: Appropriate disposition after finding error | Martinez-Rodriguez: Request resentencing without the aggravated-felony enhancement | Government: (Implicit) defend original enhancement | Held: Sentence VACATED and case REMANDED for resentencing consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez-Munoz v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2007) (prior Fifth Circuit decision applying the modified categorical approach to Tex. Penal Code § 22.04)
- Gracia-Cantu v. United States, 302 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2002) (held causing-injury-to-child statute not categorically a crime of violence because it can be committed by act or omission)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguished elements from means; modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes listing alternative elements)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explained limited availability of the modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Jefferson v. State, 289 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the act/omission language in § 22.04(a) describes means, not elements, for jury unanimity purposes)